Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective

There are no races – biological or social – only racialised groups.

We live in a richly diverse country, populated by Indigenous Australians, recent immigrants, and descendants of relatively recent immigrants. Some feel threatened by this diversity; some relish it.

Most of us, I think, are unsure quite how to talk about it.

We have many words to describe diversity. We ask people about their ancestry, their ethnicity, and – most awkwardly – their “background”. We seem least comfortable asking people about their “race”, and with good reason.

Racial classification has been used to justify some of the most heinous crimes of modernity, including those committed on our own shores. Asking people about their “race” can make you sound a bit, well, racist.

Yet “racial” classification is still commonplace. Many articles in The Conversation use the term “race” to describe human diversity. For example, one asks what’s behind racial differences in restaurant tipping?, while another tells us that infants learn to distinguish between races.

Racialised groups

What justifies the continued use of racial classification? Nothing, or so I argue in Replacing Race, an open-access article published recently in the philosophy journal Ergo.

I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races.

The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real.

This is not merely an opinion. From a scientific perspective, the best candidate for a synonym for “race” is “subspecies” (the classification level below “species” in biology). When scientists apply the standard criteria to determine whether there are subspecies/races in humans, none are found. In chimpanzees yes, but in humans no.

Racial classification is unscientific. However, humanities scholars have their own justifications for race-talk. Many argue that while there are no biological races, there are social races. Race, as philosophers put it, is a social kind.

In my view, the redefinition of race as a social kind has been a major mistake. Most people still think of race as a biological category. By redefining it socially, we risk miscommunicating with each other on this fraught topic.

Race does not exist

Not only is the redefinition of race as a social kind confusing, I argue that  race does not exist even as a social kind. Racism is real, in both an interpersonal and a structural sense, but race is not.

Once the idea of race is divorced from biology, strange things start happening, conceptually. What makes a group a “race”, if race is social, rather than biological?

We could say that races are just the groups that are labelled as races, but this doesn’t work. Just as witches are not women accused of being witches, races are not merely groups labelled as races. There has to be something more to the group for it to qualify as a social kind.

Nobody has put their finger on this “something more”. Some tie “race” to “essentialism”. Essentialism is the view that groups have essenses: fixed traits that all members of a group have, and which are unique to that group. “Social races”, on this view, are groups treated as if they have some unchangeable essence.

This move fails. While racialisation is often essentialising, it is not always. If you look at current “scientific” racism, you’ll see that it’s all about alleged inborn average differences between the so-called “races”, not racial essences (which does not make it any less horrid, or more plausible).

Moreover, essentialist thinking is not only applied to racialised groups. Gender is also essentialised, and so is ethnicity.

Remember when I said strange things start happening when race is defined socially? Well, if races are social groups subject to essentialism, we would have to accept that men and women constitute de facto races!

Let’s abandon “race”

We should abandon attempts to save the category of race. There is no good way to make sense of the category from a biological or a social perspective. There are no races, only groups misunderstood as races: racialised groups.

Racialised groups are not biological groups, in the sense that they are not biological races. Yet how you are racialised does depend on superficial biological characteristics, such as skin colour. That is to say, racialised groups have biological inclusion criteria, vague and arbitrary as they may be.

These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact.

In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”.

The category of the “racialised group” can be of great value, politically. It offers a way for those who have historically been treated as members of “inferior races” to assert and defend themselves collectively, while distancing themselves from the negative and misleading associations of the term “race”. “Race” is not needed for purposes of social justice.

According to researcher Victoria Grieves in her article Culture, not colour, is the heart of Aboriginal identity,

Being of Aboriginal descent is crucial because this is our link to country and the natural world. But at the same time, Aboriginal people do not rely on a race-based identity … continuing cultural values and practice are the true basis of Aboriginal identity in the whole of Australia today
The category of race is not needed for cultural identity or political action.

We need to be talking about racism, racialisation, and racialised groups, not “race”. Given that “race” fails as both a biological and a social category, let’s consign it to the dustbin of history’s bad ideas.


https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504

https://i.warosu.org/data/fa/img/0073/79/1386498971002.jpg

http://eclecticrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/head-1.jpg

I think Gandalf once tried to argue that he could not possibly be racist because races do not exist.

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 12:59pm:

Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real.

Well, how DO you categorise people who share those 'superficially visible' traits?

Should we say next, 'there are no blondes and brunettes, these are superficially visible traits'.
Or 'don's call me tall/short, that's only a superficially visible trait'.


Race IS about visible difference, pretty closely mapped onto culture, origin, background etc. Visible racial characteristics are inherited so it;'s no use saying they have nothing to do with biology.

It is entirely right to say that race is not everything. But to say that it's nothing is just stupid - and so it takes a young philosopher, eager to be noticed, to propose such stupidity.

What to do when the ching chong do not read The Conversation??


Beyond the pale: China’s cheerful racists
Ideas about racial hierarchies are not outdated ­anathema here but unquestioned belief
Carola Binney   19 August 2017

Setting off to spend a year teaching English in Zhejiang province in south-eastern China, I expected plenty of surprises. But what struck me most was something they tend not to tell you about in the guidebooks: the racism.

It started when I went around the classroom, asking pupils which city they were from. When I got to a slightly darker-skinned boy, his classmates thought it was hilarious to shout ‘Africa!’ It’s a theme. A girl with a similar complexion was taunted with monkey sounds; her peers refused to sit next to her, saying she smelt bad. I apparently erred when, teaching the word for wife, I showed my students a picture of Michelle Obama. The image of the then First Lady was greeted with exaggerated sounds of repulsion: ‘So ugly!’ they said. ‘So black!’

Such comments would have been treated harshly in a British classroom a quarter-century ago, let alone today. But my own protestations were met with confused faces — crestfallen that they’d disappointed their teacher, but clueless as to the nature of their mistake. And this stretches far beyond the classroom. To many Chinese, ideas about racial hierarchies are not outdated anathema but unquestioned belief.

In Britain, a politician who uses a defunct idiom like ‘black person in the woodpile’ loses the whip. In China, racism is a standard undercurrent of public debate. A few months ago, Pan Qinglin, a Tianjin politician, announced to reporters that he had found out how to ‘solve the problem of the black population in Guangdong’ — a province with a small amount of African migration. Warning that the new arrivals brought drugs, sexual assault and infectious diseases, he urged local policy-makers to tighten controls to prevent China turning ‘from a yellow country to a black-and-yellow country’.

The Chinese don’t make a big deal about their racism: it’s so commonplace it can seem almost cheerful. An advert for a detergent shows a black man chatting up a Chinese woman, only for her to shove him in the washing machine until he emerges a fair-skinned Asian. The advert aired for months before it was picked up by an English-language website and caused uproar. The company, Qiaobi, apologised — to its non-customers. Its analogy of black skin and dirty laundry made perfect sense to the Chinese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEwnMTaXTys
Chinese racism is, in part, the extension of a long-standing association of wealth and pale skin: a near-universal construct that is particularly acute in a country that was for centuries ruled by various subsections of its pallid northern population.

The history of China is also the history of proud isolationism: it has been keeping outsiders outside for generations. China was long the most developed country in Asia, and just as the Greeks stigmatised their neighbours as barbarians, the Chinese scorned theirs. The turn of the 20th century brought the grudging acknowledgement of western technological superiority, and with it a shift from the general policy of viewing all foreigners as inferior: an exception was made for westerners.

The racism begins with the assumption that all westerners are white. In the words of my black Cameroonian colleague, the Chinese are prone to think that ‘all blacks are from Africa, and everyone in Africa has AIDS’.

The notion of a black Briton is puzzling, when to be Chinese is to be Han and vice versa: the Party believes itself to be the legitimate government not just of all the Han in China, but everywhere else as well. In 2015, five Hong Kong-based Han booksellers were arrested for allegedly selling seditious works. One man was a British citizen and another a Swede, but their foreign passports did nothing, in the government’s eyes, to counteract their Chinese blood: both men were denied consular support. The Swede announced on state television, probably under duress, that ‘I truly feel that I am still Chinese’.

Conversely, a non-Han Chinese person is considered a contradiction in terms, and the Chinese apply the same logic to the citizens of other countries. When I showed my class my own school photograph, I expected them to remark on how terrible my hair looked. Instead, their first response was ‘Why are there those black girls in England?’

China’s government says it is ‘a unified multi-ethnic country’. It is not. To a British visitor, China appears astonishingly ethnically homogeneous: the Han ethnic group make up 92 per cent of the population, but walk the streets of almost any city and you’ll wonder where the other 8 per cent are hiding. The answer is: in ethnic minority enclaves on the fringes of some of the country’s poorest provinces. China has almost no citizens of non-Chinese descent: it is extremely difficult for expats to secure Chinese citizenship, so most are forced to leave as soon as their employment visas expire. China’s non-Han residents are members of the country’s indigenous minorities, who are almost always darker-skinned than their Han neighbours.

Treated variously as a security risk or as purveyors of quaint cultural curiosities, China’s minorities have been left behind by the economic progress of the last half century. Most work in the fields, and a few find employment performing folk dances to Han tourists. One study found that the per capita income gap between Han and minority Chinese increased by almost 17 percentage points between 1988 and 1995, when the Chinese economy began to skyrocket. While the incidence of poverty in China has decreased by a jaw-dropping 92 per cent in the past 40 years, almost half of those still living on less than $1.50 per day reside in minority enclaves.

When development does come, it is often seen as centrally imposed Sinicisation. Efforts to ensure that Tibetan children speak fluent Mandarin, for example, have resulted in the arrest of those who promote the local language. The approach to minorities is cruel and contradictory: most Han Chinese don’t see minority citizens as their fellow country-men, but still maintain that Beijing has a right to govern them.

My time in a Chinese classroom didn’t instil much hope of an enlightened next generation, but there are a few signs that things might be starting to change. Chinese teenage boys idolise the African-American basketball star Kobe Bryant, for instance — posters of him festooned the dormitory walls.

If China wants to realise its aspiration of replacing America as the country the world looks up to, it will need to sort out its race problem. It is an issue which fuels unrest at home, and damages the country’s reputation abroad. Xi Jinping has talked about a ‘Chinese dream’ — let’s hope it exports tolerance, not racism.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/beyond-the-pale-chinas-cheerful-racists/

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 1:21pm:

http://eclecticrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/head-1.jpg

Obviously an indiginous person.

mothra,

If moslems are permitted, and encouraged          by their religion        to HATE Jews and to HATE Christians and to HATE Hindus and Buddhists, BECAUSE they are not moslems,
then why would many moslems call me a racist,
simply because i criticise ISLAM and those who are followers of ISLAM, as being hateful and intolerant ?

And please tell me, why is it wrong for me to broadcast that fact, and to tell everyone that i know that,
moslems are encouraged by their religion to HATE Jews and to HATE Christians and to HATE Hindus and Buddhists, and to HATE all persons who reject ISLAM ?



mothra,

Aren't moslems,     IN BEING MOSLEMS [and in being followers of ISLAM],        participating in the spread of religious hatred and intolerance, and the spread violent religious bigotry ?



I am    NOT    a racist [for telling that truth].

And, i am not a racist.    Period.

And neither ISLAM, nor moslems, are a 'race' of people.

Moslems are just latent, wanna-be, homicidal maniacs.

....if they were not,         moslems would renounce the religious HATRED and the religious BIGOTRY which ISLAM promotes [against those who do not believe as they [moslems] believe].



Google;
muslims, persecution of religious minorities

Google;
muslims, persecution of christians





"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
Koran 2.089


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4



.






THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260



ALL MOSLEMS CLAIM TO CHERISH THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION [i.e. TO PRACTICE ISLAM].....

BUT MOSLEMS, THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, ARE SEEN TO DENY, EXACTLY THAT RIGHT TO OTHERS!

Even in a so-called liberal moslem nation like Malaysia.



.





Quote:

"Malaysia's Prime Minister: LGBTs, liberalism, and pluralism are enemies of Islam" "Last Malaysian Hindu temple in central Kuala Lumpur condemned, given five days to vacate" "Malaysian temple condemned, temple staff and devotees given 15 minutes to leave" "Malaysian government views LGBT community as a 'spreading problem' to be stopped" "Malaysian deputy prime minister: Islam not compatible with freedom, liberal thought" "Yet another Malaysian non-Muslim house of worship demolished" "Malaysian state holding seminar on "threat of Christianity" " "A message from Malaysia's king: "Muslims need to emulate Prophet Muhammad" "

http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/malaysia/


Q.
But why is it that the views      ABOVE     being expressed        BY MOSLEMS       within a nation like Malaysia, almost never make our nightly TV news reports ????




mothra,

Q.
Are moslems in Malaysia, 'RACISTS' ?

Or are they just religious bigots ?

you know if an Aboriginal comedian  were to stand up and ridicule his "race"   we would all laugh and have a jolly good time...hopefully the aboriginal community would join in.

I know of two Muslim comedians and really they are the funniest of people because they mock their own...and we love it....

black comedians always mock their own people..

not withstanding the poms of course... who laugh the longest and the loudest at themselves...

this is the trouble with today...its all to serious and searching for answers..

laugh guys have a good bloody laugh  but mostly at yourself...it will do you the world of good..


race or racists....gawd was he paid for that?

mothra said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1480468849/106#106

Quote:

It's not up to any of us to decide what a person is or is not offended by.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 3:49pm:

I think Gandalf once tried to argue that he could not possibly be racist because races do not exist.

Because you give such reliable recounts of people's actual arguments?

cods wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 6:09pm:

you know if an Aboriginal comedian  were to stand up and ridicule his "race"   we would all laugh and have a jolly good time...hopefully the aboriginal community would join in. I know of two Muslim comedians and really they are the funniest of people because they mock their own...and we love it.... black comedians always mock their own people.. not withstanding the poms of course... who laugh the longest and the loudest at themselves... this is the trouble with today...its all to serious and searching for answers.. laugh guys have a good bloody laugh  but mostly at yourself...it will do you the world of good.. race or racists....gawd was he paid for that?

X2

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 1:01pm:

Race does not exist These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact. In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”. https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504

Those in the Darwinist camps have been talking about this false dichotomy for decades. The post-structuralists pushed the debate so far in the direction of the social, the biological got lost and was dismissed in the process.

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:40pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 3:49pm: I think Gandalf once tried to argue that he could not possibly be racist because races do not exist. Because you give such reliable recounts of people's actual arguments?

already trashing your own thread - make it personal why don't you- all over the place even up the walls-

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:44pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Race does not exist These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact. In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”. https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 Those in the Darwinist camps have been talking about this false dichotomy for decades. The post-structuralists pushed the debate so far in the direction of the social, the biological got lost and was dismissed in the process.

Oh? What is "the biological", Mistie?

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:45pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:44pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Race does not exist These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact. In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”. https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 Those in the Darwinist camps have been talking about this false dichotomy for decades. The post-structuralists pushed the debate so far in the direction of the social, the biological got lost and was dismissed in the process. Oh? What is "the biological", Mistie?

Strictly speaking, it is the study of living organisms.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:49pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:44pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Race does not exist These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact. In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”. https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 Those in the Darwinist camps have been talking about this false dichotomy for decades. The post-structuralists pushed the debate so far in the direction of the social, the biological got lost and was dismissed in the process. Oh? What is "the biological", Mistie? Strictly speaking, it is the study of living organisms.

So, you're saying they stopped studying people as living beings?

Or did you perhaps mean something else?

Frank wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 6:00pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 1:21pm: http://eclecticrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/head-1.jpg Obviously an indiginous person.

yes

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:49pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:44pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Race does not exist These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact. In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”. https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 Those in the Darwinist camps have been talking about this false dichotomy for decades. The post-structuralists pushed the debate so far in the direction of the social, the biological got lost and was dismissed in the process. Oh? What is "the biological", Mistie? Strictly speaking, it is the study of living organisms. So, you're saying they stopped studying people as living beings? Or did you perhaps mean something else?

No. I said what I said: biology is the study of living organisms.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:01pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:49pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:44pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Race does not exist These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact. In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”. https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 Those in the Darwinist camps have been talking about this false dichotomy for decades. The post-structuralists pushed the debate so far in the direction of the social, the biological got lost and was dismissed in the process. Oh? What is "the biological", Mistie? Strictly speaking, it is the study of living organisms. So, you're saying they stopped studying people as living beings? Or did you perhaps mean something else? No. I said what I said: biology is the study of living organisms.

So what biological factors do you think have been overlooked in the current clime?

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:03pm:

So what biological factors do you think have been overlooked in the current clime?

Almost all of it. Apart from Dawkins, biology plays no part in contemporary discussions on human behaviour. The current discussion revolves around power, 'oppression' and 'victims'. Additionally, the moral dimension of the discussion has almost totally taken over the 'what is' dimension.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:09pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:03pm: So what biological factors do you think have been overlooked in the current clime? Almost all of it. Apart from Dawkins, biology plays no part in contemporary discussions on human behaviour. The current discussion revolves around power, 'oppression' and 'victims'. Additionally, the moral dimension of the discussion has almost totally taken over the 'what is' dimension.

You are either willfully dodging my question or you are incapable of taking obvious hints.

Mistie, what biological variations between humans with differing levels of melanin or other superficialities do you think are relevant enough to not be overlooked by modern academia?

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:13pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:09pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:03pm: So what biological factors do you think have been overlooked in the current clime? Almost all of it. Apart from Dawkins, biology plays no part in contemporary discussions on human behaviour. The current discussion revolves around power, 'oppression' and 'victims'. Additionally, the moral dimension of the discussion has almost totally taken over the 'what is' dimension. You are either willfully dodging my question or you are incapable of taking obvious hints. Mistie, what biological variations between humans with differing levels of melanin or other superficialities do you think are relevant enough to not be overlooked by modern academia?

I am not dodging anything. I answered your question and now you've asked a new question, one that I will answer.

The discussion ought not to be on melanin, but on how the body's organs, cells etc. dictate how humans act. You're adding a moral dimension to the discussion before it's been clarified how the social and biological interact.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:17pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:13pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:09pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:03pm: So what biological factors do you think have been overlooked in the current clime? Almost all of it. Apart from Dawkins, biology plays no part in contemporary discussions on human behaviour. The current discussion revolves around power, 'oppression' and 'victims'. Additionally, the moral dimension of the discussion has almost totally taken over the 'what is' dimension. You are either willfully dodging my question or you are incapable of taking obvious hints. Mistie, what biological variations between humans with differing levels of melanin or other superficialities do you think are relevant enough to not be overlooked by modern academia? I am not dodging anything. I answered your question and now you've asked a new question, one that I will answer. The discussion ought not to be on melanin, but on how the body's organs, cells etc. dictate how humans act. You're adding a moral dimension to the discussion before it's been clarified how the social and biological interact.

Ahh .. so option 2 it is.

But now Mistie, you still haven't answered my question. What of relevance is different between people with various levels of melanin or other superficial differences?

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 1:01pm:

Race does not exist Not only is the redefinition of race as a social kind confusing, I argue that  race does not exist even as a social kind. Racism is real, in both an interpersonal and a structural sense, but race is not. Once the idea of race is divorced from biology, strange things start happening, conceptually. What makes a group a “race”, if race is social, rather than biological? We could say that races are just the groups that are labelled as races, but this doesn’t work. Just as witches are not women accused of being witches, races are not merely groups labelled as races. There has to be something more to the group for it to qualify as a social kind. Nobody has put their finger on this “something more”. Some tie “race” to “essentialism”. Essentialism is the view that groups have essenses: fixed traits that all members of a group have, and which are unique to that group. “Social races”, on this view, are groups treated as if they have some unchangeable essence. This move fails. While racialisation is often essentialising, it is not always. If you look at current “scientific” racism, you’ll see that it’s all about alleged inborn average differences between the so-called “races”, not racial essences (which does not make it any less horrid, or more plausible). Moreover, essentialist thinking is not only applied to racialised groups. Gender is also essentialised, and so is ethnicity. Remember when I said strange things start happening when race is defined socially? Well, if races are social groups subject to essentialism, we would have to accept that men and women constitute de facto races! Let’s abandon “race” We should abandon attempts to save the category of race. There is no good way to make sense of the category from a biological or a social perspective. There are no races, only groups misunderstood as races: racialised groups. Racialised groups are not biological groups, in the sense that they are not biological races. Yet how you are racialised does depend on superficial biological characteristics, such as skin colour. That is to say, racialised groups have biological inclusion criteria, vague and arbitrary as they may be. These biological inclusion criteria are determined by social factors. Philosophical debates about “race” have relied on a dichotomy between the biological and the social. However, this is a false dichotomy: the biological and the social interact. In racialisation, the biological and the social interact with a number of other factors: administrative, cultural, economic, geographic, gendered, historical, lingual, phenomenological, political, psychological, religious, and so on. I call this view “interactive constructionism about racialised groups”. The category of the “racialised group” can be of great value, politically. It offers a way for those who have historically been treated as members of “inferior races” to assert and defend themselves collectively, while distancing themselves from the negative and misleading associations of the term “race”. “Race” is not needed for purposes of social justice. According to researcher Victoria Grieves in her article Culture, not colour, is the heart of Aboriginal identity, Being of Aboriginal descent is crucial because this is our link to country and the natural world. But at the same time, Aboriginal people do not rely on a race-based identity … continuing cultural values and practice are the true basis of Aboriginal identity in the whole of Australia today The category of race is not needed for cultural identity or political action. We need to be talking about racism, racialisation, and racialised groups, not “race”. Given that “race” fails as both a biological and a social category, let’s consign it to the dustbin of history’s bad ideas. https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504

What a load of bollocks.

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:20pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:17pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:13pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:09pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:03pm: So what biological factors do you think have been overlooked in the current clime? Almost all of it. Apart from Dawkins, biology plays no part in contemporary discussions on human behaviour. The current discussion revolves around power, 'oppression' and 'victims'. Additionally, the moral dimension of the discussion has almost totally taken over the 'what is' dimension. You are either willfully dodging my question or you are incapable of taking obvious hints. Mistie, what biological variations between humans with differing levels of melanin or other superficialities do you think are relevant enough to not be overlooked by modern academia? I am not dodging anything. I answered your question and now you've asked a new question, one that I will answer. The discussion ought not to be on melanin, but on how the body's organs, cells etc. dictate how humans act. You're adding a moral dimension to the discussion before it's been clarified how the social and biological interact. Ahh .. so option 2 it is. But now Mistie, you still haven't answered my question. What of relevance is different between people with various levels of melanin or other superficial differences?

I did answer it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:24pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:20pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:17pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:13pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:09pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:03pm: So what biological factors do you think have been overlooked in the current clime? Almost all of it. Apart from Dawkins, biology plays no part in contemporary discussions on human behaviour. The current discussion revolves around power, 'oppression' and 'victims'. Additionally, the moral dimension of the discussion has almost totally taken over the 'what is' dimension. You are either willfully dodging my question or you are incapable of taking obvious hints. Mistie, what biological variations between humans with differing levels of melanin or other superficialities do you think are relevant enough to not be overlooked by modern academia? I am not dodging anything. I answered your question and now you've asked a new question, one that I will answer. The discussion ought not to be on melanin, but on how the body's organs, cells etc. dictate how humans act. You're adding a moral dimension to the discussion before it's been clarified how the social and biological interact. Ahh .. so option 2 it is. But now Mistie, you still haven't answered my question. What of relevance is different between people with various levels of melanin or other superficial differences? I did answer it.

So, "organs and cells" are different in people with varied levels of melanin and other superficial differences. Is that what you're saying?

And those "organs and cell" would "dictate how people act"?

Have you noticed differences in "how people act" according to their superficial characteristics on even playing fields?

I know where you're going, but you're not clever enough to trap me.

Melanin in itself, to my knowledge, has no influence on the biological side of behaviour. Organs and cells do. Without them we'd be dead.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:35pm:

I know where you're going, but you're not clever enough to trap me. Melanin in itself, to my knowledge, has no influence on the biological side of behaviour. Organs and cells do. Without them we'd be dead.

So what differences do have an influence over people with differing levels of melanin and other superficial characteristics?

Don't want to say, hey?

I am not a biologist, so I am not going to tread into areas that I don't know. The merging of biology and social factors is still a very young science, one that hasn't gotten far due to supposed moral implications.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 8:58pm:

I am not a biologist, so I am not going to tread into areas that I don't know. The merging of biology and social factors is still a very young science, one that hasn't gotten far due to supposed moral implications.

Oh really? Nobody's ever thought of it up until recently? Are you sure about that?

Anyway, have you noticed any discernible differences in how the "organs and cells" may be having an impact on the behaviour of people according to the levels of melanin they have and other superficial features?

Has anyone ever noticed anything that stands up to scrutiny when the playing field is even?

What are some of the things you've noticed, Mistie? The things that you think are relevant but are being overlooked by this recent branch of science that has (even more recently i assume) been abandoned because of leftist ideology?

I've answered these questions, numerous times. I not into playing your game. Suffice to say, that your position is a moral one and is not concerned with understanding. You've taken a moral stand then worked backwards from there, selectively, to support your point. I operate the other way.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 9:10pm:

I've answered these questions, numerous times. I not into playing your game. Suffice to say, that your position is a moral one and is not concerned with understanding. You've taken a moral stand then worked backwards from there, selectively, to support your point. I operate the other way.

No. You haven't. You've not given me one example of how people behave in accordance to their levels of melanin or other superficial features.

What are you saying Mistie? What differences have you noticed? You don't seem to want to say.

Clown, that's because I said melanin in itself has no influence.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Clown, that's because I said melanin in itself has no influence.

Would you like me to refer to people with differing levels of melanin and specific superficial features as something in particular, Mistie?

Would you answer the question if i asked what differences in behaviour you have seen between differing "races"?

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:40pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 3:49pm: I think Gandalf once tried to argue that he could not possibly be racist because races do not exist. Because you give such reliable recounts of people's actual arguments?

No, I don't think that is why he said it.

No thanks. I am done here.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 9:43pm:

No thanks. I am done here.

All you wanted to achieve was to say that we don;t study the biological differences between the "races" anymore because of, well, lefties ... even though it's a new branch of science ... but you can't give any examples of differences in behaviour between the "races" if the playing field is even?

Oh, well well done then. You managed that.

So, when they line up 8 black men to run 100m in an athletics final, that is racism? Or does race not exist.... apart from the actual event of running one?

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 11:29pm:

So, when they line up 8 black men to run 100m in an athletics final, that is racism? Or does race not exist.... apart from the actual event of running one?

Did you read the article? It's all explained there.

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 12:59pm:

Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real.

Well, how DO you categorise people who share those 'superficially visible' traits?

Should we say next, 'there are no blondes and brunettes, these are superficially visible traits'.
Or 'don's call me tall/short, that's only a superficially visible trait'.


Race IS about visible difference, pretty closely mapped onto culture, origin, background etc. Visible racial characteristics are inherited so it's no use/stupid saying they have nothing to do with biology.

It is entirely right to say that race is not everything. But to say that it's nothing is just stupid - and so it takes a young philosopher, eager to be noticed, to propose such stupidity.

Frank wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2017 at 7:20pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 12:59pm: Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real. Well, how DO you categorise people who share those 'superficially visible' traits? Should we say next, 'there are no blondes and brunettes, these are superficially visible traits'. Or 'don's call me tall/short, that's only a superficially visible trait'. Race IS about visible difference, pretty closely mapped onto culture, origin, background etc. Visible racial characteristics are inherited so it's no use/stupid saying they have nothing to do with biology. It is entirely right to say that race is not everything. But to say that it's nothing is just stupid - and so it takes a young philosopher, eager to be noticed, to propose such stupidity.

[smiley=thumbup.gif]

Gnads wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2017 at 10:35am:

Frank wrote on Sep 2nd, 2017 at 7:20pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 12:59pm: Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real. Well, how DO you categorise people who share those 'superficially visible' traits? Should we say next, 'there are no blondes and brunettes, these are superficially visible traits'. Or 'don's call me tall/short, that's only a superficially visible trait'. Race IS about visible difference, pretty closely mapped onto culture, origin, background etc. Visible racial characteristics are inherited so it's no use/stupid saying they have nothing to do with biology. It is entirely right to say that race is not everything. But to say that it's nothing is just stupid - and so it takes a young philosopher, eager to be noticed, to propose such stupidity. [smiley=thumbup.gif]

great.

More important than the 'obvious visible differences' is the customs and historic results of SOME RACES.

name one country run by blacks that you would like to live in.

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 11:29pm:

So, when they line up 8 black men to run 100m in an athletics final, that is racism? Or does race not exist.... apart from the actual event of running one?

Black men run faster because they have a more active coward gene.

White men have evolved to stand and fight with superior weaponry, so thay dont have to run as fast.

Its as simple as that :D

mothra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 12:59pm:

Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective There are no races – biological or social – only racialised groups. We live in a richly diverse country, populated by Indigenous Australians, recent immigrants, and descendants of relatively recent immigrants. Some feel threatened by this diversity; some relish it. Most of us, I think, are unsure quite how to talk about it. We have many words to describe diversity. We ask people about their ancestry, their ethnicity, and – most awkwardly – their “background”. We seem least comfortable asking people about their “race”, and with good reason. Racial classification has been used to justify some of the most heinous crimes of modernity, including those committed on our own shores. Asking people about their “race” can make you sound a bit, well, racist. Yet “racial” classification is still commonplace. Many articles in The Conversation use the term “race” to describe human diversity. For example, one asks what’s behind racial differences in restaurant tipping?, while another tells us that infants learn to distinguish between races. Racialised groups What justifies the continued use of racial classification? Nothing, or so I argue in Replacing Race, an open-access article published recently in the philosophy journal Ergo. I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real. This is not merely an opinion. From a scientific perspective, the best candidate for a synonym for “race” is “subspecies” (the classification level below “species” in biology). When scientists apply the standard criteria to determine whether there are subspecies/races in humans, none are found. In chimpanzees yes, but in humans no. Racial classification is unscientific. However, humanities scholars have their own justifications for race-talk. Many argue that while there are no biological races, there are social races. Race, as philosophers put it, is a social kind. In my view, the redefinition of race as a social kind has been a major mistake. Most people still think of race as a biological category. By redefining it socially, we risk miscommunicating with each other on this fraught topic.

What is it when you fight your own argument in one short sentence????  :D That doesn't make an ounce of sense. No races yet there's racism ????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hammer, i told Greg you weren't stupid. Don't make a fool of me now.

mothra wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2017 at 4:56pm:

Hammer, i told Greg you weren't stupid. Don't make a fool of me now.

So what's you definition of racism?

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2017 at 4:38pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 12:59pm: Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective There are no races – biological or social – only racialised groups. We live in a richly diverse country, populated by Indigenous Australians, recent immigrants, and descendants of relatively recent immigrants. Some feel threatened by this diversity; some relish it. Most of us, I think, are unsure quite how to talk about it. We have many words to describe diversity. We ask people about their ancestry, their ethnicity, and – most awkwardly – their “background”. We seem least comfortable asking people about their “race”, and with good reason. Racial classification has been used to justify some of the most heinous crimes of modernity, including those committed on our own shores. Asking people about their “race” can make you sound a bit, well, racist. Yet “racial” classification is still commonplace. Many articles in The Conversation use the term “race” to describe human diversity. For example, one asks what’s behind racial differences in restaurant tipping?, while another tells us that infants learn to distinguish between races. Racialised groups What justifies the continued use of racial classification? Nothing, or so I argue in Replacing Race, an open-access article published recently in the philosophy journal Ergo. I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real. This is not merely an opinion. From a scientific perspective, the best candidate for a synonym for “race” is “subspecies” (the classification level below “species” in biology). When scientists apply the standard criteria to determine whether there are subspecies/races in humans, none are found. In chimpanzees yes, but in humans no. Racial classification is unscientific. However, humanities scholars have their own justifications for race-talk. Many argue that while there are no biological races, there are social races. Race, as philosophers put it, is a social kind. In my view, the redefinition of race as a social kind has been a major mistake. Most people still think of race as a biological category. By redefining it socially, we risk miscommunicating with each other on this fraught topic. What is it when you fight your own argument in one short sentence????  :D That doesn't make an ounce of sense. No races yet there's racism ????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Got her by the short & curlies there.  ;D

Gnads wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2017 at 6:04pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 3rd, 2017 at 4:38pm: mothra wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 12:59pm: Racism is real, race is not: a philosopher’s perspective There are no races – biological or social – only racialised groups. We live in a richly diverse country, populated by Indigenous Australians, recent immigrants, and descendants of relatively recent immigrants. Some feel threatened by this diversity; some relish it. Most of us, I think, are unsure quite how to talk about it. We have many words to describe diversity. We ask people about their ancestry, their ethnicity, and – most awkwardly – their “background”. We seem least comfortable asking people about their “race”, and with good reason. Racial classification has been used to justify some of the most heinous crimes of modernity, including those committed on our own shores. Asking people about their “race” can make you sound a bit, well, racist. Yet “racial” classification is still commonplace. Many articles in The Conversation use the term “race” to describe human diversity. For example, one asks what’s behind racial differences in restaurant tipping?, while another tells us that infants learn to distinguish between races. Racialised groups What justifies the continued use of racial classification? Nothing, or so I argue in Replacing Race, an open-access article published recently in the philosophy journal Ergo. I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. The reader may object – “surely, I can see race with my bare eyes!” However, it is not race we see, but the superficial visible biological diversity within our species: variation in traits such as skin colour, hair form and eye shape. This variation is not enough to justify racial classification. Our biological diversity is too small, and too smoothly distributed across geographic space, for race to be real. This is not merely an opinion. From a scientific perspective, the best candidate for a synonym for “race” is “subspecies” (the classification level below “species” in biology). When scientists apply the standard criteria to determine whether there are subspecies/races in humans, none are found. In chimpanzees yes, but in humans no. Racial classification is unscientific. However, humanities scholars have their own justifications for race-talk. Many argue that while there are no biological races, there are social races. Race, as philosophers put it, is a social kind. In my view, the redefinition of race as a social kind has been a major mistake. Most people still think of race as a biological category. By redefining it socially, we risk miscommunicating with each other on this fraught topic. What is it when you fight your own argument in one short sentence????  :D That doesn't make an ounce of sense. No races yet there's racism ????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Got her by the short & curlies there.  ;D

You either did not read or not understand the OP. Which is it? Maybe i can help?

Racism works many ways - the arbitrary allocation of it to selected groups accorded Accredited Victim Status merely muddies the waters and offers discriminatory advantages to those groups.

Allocating special privileges to those who constantly cry 'racism' or 'homophobia' or 'sexism' or any other artificial label, is in itself the most virulent form of Racism and Discrimination..... and has virtually brought this nation to its knees.....

mothra wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2017 at 6:20pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 11:29pm: So, when they line up 8 black men to run 100m in an athletics final, that is racism? Or does race not exist.... apart from the actual event of running one? Did you read the article? It's all explained there.

I was being sarcastic.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2017 at 11:49pm:

Racism works many ways - the arbitrary allocation of it to selected groups accorded Accredited Victim Status merely muddies the waters and offers discriminatory advantages to those groups. Allocating special privileges to those who constantly cry 'racism' or 'homophobia' or 'sexism' or any other artificial label, is in itself the most virulent form of Racism and Discrimination..... and has virtually brought this nation to its knees.....

[smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif]

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 3:49pm:

I think Gandalf once tried to argue that he could not possibly be racist because races do not exist.

No I didn't. As usual you are clueless as to my actual arguments.

Interestingly, very few racists today actually base their racism in a traditional biological racial theory - like we see with some diehards like Frank. Most racists today are of the "I'm not racist, but..." - or a popular variant "Islam is not a race, so..."

Islam is not a race. Its a cancer. Time to hit it with radiation.

FD mounted a heroic defense of this most blatantly racist statement with the good old "Islam is not a race" excuse:


moses wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2015 at 4:39pm:

The result to day is that if there's 1.5 billion muslims, half are men 750 million inbred low intellect muslim men all squatting down to urinate

This was around the same time FD was screaming blue murder over the "blatantly racist" term "arabia for arabs".

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 8:20am:

Interestingly, very few racists today actually base their racism in a traditional biological racial theory - like we see with some diehards like Frank. Most racists today are of the "I'm not racist, but..." - or a popular variant "Islam is not a race, so..."

Is Islam a race Gandalf?

if the field of medical science ignored the fact that races exist then life expectancy would be half of what it is.

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 2:50pm:

if the field of medical science ignored the fact that races exist then life expectancy would be half of what it is.

Oh do explain. I'm on the edge of my seat.

mothra wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 2:51pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:50pm: if the field of medical science ignored the fact that races exist then life expectancy would be half of what it is. Oh do explain. I'm on the edge of my seat.

You can start with this. Let me know when you are finished and I will test you with a quiz with marks out of 100.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:51pm: rhino wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:50pm: if the field of medical science ignored the fact that races exist then life expectancy would be half of what it is. Oh do explain. I'm on the edge of my seat. You can start with this. Let me know when you are finished and I will test you with a quiz with marks out of 100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health

This is not merely an opinion. From a scientific perspective, the best candidate for a synonym for “race” is “subspecies” (the classification level below “species” in biology). When scientists apply the standard criteria to determine whether there are subspecies/races in humans, none are found. In chimpanzees yes, but in humans no.

Quote:

Genetics have been proven to be a strong predictor for common diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and psychiatric illnesses,[22] and geneticists have been able to determine that "human genetic variation is geographically structured". The different geographic regions correlate with different races,[23] which is logical when looking at the "Out of Africa" theory and understanding how changes in genetics of a population acquire over time.

[quote]

mothra wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 3:08pm:

rhino wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:05pm: mothra wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:51pm: rhino wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:50pm: if the field of medical science ignored the fact that races exist then life expectancy would be half of what it is. Oh do explain. I'm on the edge of my seat. You can start with this. Let me know when you are finished and I will test you with a quiz with marks out of 100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health This is not merely an opinion. From a scientific perspective, the best candidate for a synonym for “race” is “subspecies” (the classification level below “species” in biology). When scientists apply the standard criteria to determine whether there are subspecies/races in humans, none are found. In chimpanzees yes, but in humans no.

Rubbish, common scientific belief holds that race exists.

I'll just wait for you to catch up.

No Rhino. The difference between people is sub-race. Biologically.

white flag accepted. I knew you had next to no knowledge about the subject. That didnt take long. lol.

rhino wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 3:09pm:

Quote: Genetics have been proven to be a strong predictor for common diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and psychiatric illnesses,[22] and geneticists have been able to determine that "human genetic variation is geographically structured". The different geographic regions correlate with different races,[23] which is logical when looking at the "Out of Africa" theory and understanding how changes in genetics of a population acquire over time. [quote]

Rhino, understanding shared risk factors amongst groups of people is just good science.

There are, however, no example in which the human race has twice it's age span as a result of understanding the differences between races.

There are no diseases or disease states that are unique to any group that wouldn't be present members of another group providing the causal factors were the same, Rhino. Risk factors are only one variable of diagnosis.

https://youtu.be/WHrnVI0EvHk

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 8:08am:

freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 3:49pm: I think Gandalf once tried to argue that he could not possibly be racist because races do not exist. No I didn't. As usual you are clueless as to my actual arguments.

Here is Gandalf arguing that criticising Islam must be counted as racism because races don't exist:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 1^st, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Quote: The racial discrimination act has been broadened to absurd levels, just like your efforts to redefine the word racism. "racism" has to be redefined when its root word "race" literally has no meaning. And when someone who is preaching these sorts of gems of wisdom goes off and thinks that prejudice based on a linguistic group is "blatant racism" or boldly claims that "Asians" are a race - you know the word is in trouble. Basically its because people like you are so clueless about "race", that "racism" must be redefined. But as you say FD, 'racism' is very much real - even if it has nothing to do with your confused notion of "race". It is probably the most destructive form of prejudice that exists in society, and constantly threatens to pull it apart. That is why its important to have specific laws that guard against it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 16^th, 2016 at 11:40am:

I reluctantly start a new thread in a desperate bid to get an actual answer from FD. As you all know, FD's favourite retort to the claim that Islamophobia is racism - is to quip that Islam is not a race. FD's position, therefore, is that racism can only be racism if it refers to actual genetic "races". FD, feel free to stop me here if I've misrepresented you in any way - since I haven't inserted any quotes yet. But I'm hoping common sense kicks in here and you won't dispute that. It is therefore strange when FD refers to the phrase "arabia for arabs" as a case of "blatant racism". For example: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings as well as his desire for genocide, you suddenly can't see it? Apparently, the "clear reference to racial groupings" as well as "his desire for genocide" is all encapsulated in that one phrase "arabia for arabs" - correct FD? Just one problem - arabs are not a race, they are a linguistic group, defined only by the language they speak - not from any genetic commonalities that might class them as a "race" - as understood by the 19th century notion of the word. Interestingly, when I pointed out this clear contradiction in FD's position, he flayed away in deflection in typical fashion - but certainly didn't deny that it is indeed true that arabs are not a race (and therefore rendering his whole premise about racism flawed): freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 1:38pm: Quote: arabs are not a race And inbred people are? Where are you trying to go with this Gandalf? An expose on the mental contortions of a Muslim reformer? So FD, if you wouldn't mind just clarifying for us all, how the phrase 'arabia for arabs' is blatant racism - given that you don't dispute the fact that arabs are not a race. Thanks.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 5:57pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 8:54am: Racism still exists even if you don't think races do Gandalf. So what is 'racism' then FD? What are the allowed parameters? freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 8:54am: Welcome to the English language Gandalf. Words have meaning. Excellent point FD. For example, 'anti-semite' is a term that is restricted to being anti-jew, even though a 'semite' refers to all people who speak a semitic language, of which jews are just one. Welcome to the English language innit English can be very difficult for newcomers because of these inconsistencies, but I assure you that the words still have meaning despite them. Like I said, keep at it and you'll get the hang of it eventually. Well apparently you haven't got the hang of it yet - here you seem to accept that the term "anti-semitism" can mean something different to its literal meaning, but the same thing can't happen with the term "racism". Can you explain that? And you haven't answered the question - what is "racism" in your view ? What is allowed and what is not? Because, no offense, you seem rather confused about it all: Islamophobia is not allowed - because muslims are not a 'race' - but 'arabia for arabs' is not just racism - its blatant racism, because... err... arabs aren't a race either, but a linguistic group? You never did explain how that works. Is it because you are completely clueless about 'race' itself - thinking, for example, that there is an "Asian" race? Has it clicked yet how utterly ridiculous that is?

mothra wrote on Sep 4^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

I'll just wait for you to catch up.

Rhino is correct....  YOU as usual are wrong, like so many of your ilk on so many things.

race
[reys]
noun
1.
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2.
a population so related.
3.
Anthropology.  Any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by distinctive and universal physical characteristics.  An arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
4.
a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage:
the Slavic race.
5.
any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.:
the Dutch race.
6.
the human race or family; humankind:
Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7.
Zoology. a variety; subspecies.

Grendel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:10pm: I'll just wait for you to catch up. Rhino is correct....  YOU as usual are wrong, like so many of your ilk on so many things. race [reys] noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology.  Any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by distinctive and universal physical characteristics.  An arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.

Oh good. Rhino and Grendel are in agreement. How ever will science and i counter that?

mothra wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 10:28pm:

Grendel wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 10:27pm: mothra wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:10pm: I'll just wait for you to catch up. Rhino is correct....  YOU as usual are wrong, like so many of your ilk on so many things. race [reys] noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology.  Any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by distinctive and universal physical characteristics.  An arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. Oh good. Rhino and Grendel are in agreement. How ever will science and i counter that?

Why would you change precedent and not leave science out of it?

Like to have a go at rephrasing that so it makes sense? Ta.

Which racism are we talking about here? White v Black or Black v White?

I treat everyone the same... when I buy petrol from the Indian down the road I offer him a genuine 'thank you' and treat him like everyone else, even though he is an employee of some turkey who is probably ripping him off and others as well.

When I used to drive to work down south, I would fill up at a servo run by Indians, and I treated them all the same as I treat everyone else who behaves in a civilised manner - with civility and courtesy.

Maybe I was wrong, and should have figured those Indians were racist and were intent on robbing everyone... like so many self-interested groups seem to want to do.....

That is the kind of thing we see happening with all this 'racist' garbage' doing the rounds.... most decent, ordinary people like me don't even begin to understand what 'this 'racism' is all about.... since we don't live it... but it seems certain others do..... and make a big deal out of it.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 2:21am:

Which racism are we talking about here? White v Black or Black v White? I treat everyone the same... when I buy petrol from the Indian down the road I offer him a genuine 'thank you' and treat him like everyone else, even though he is an employee of some turkey who is probably ripping him off and others as well. When I used to drive to work down south, I would fill up at a servo run by Indians, and I treated them all the same as I treat everyone else who behaves in a civilised manner - with civility and courtesy. Maybe I was wrong, and should have figured those Indians were racist and were intent on robbing everyone... like so many self-interested groups seem to want to do..... That is the kind of thing we see happening with all this 'racist' garbage' doing the rounds.... most decent, ordinary people like me don't even begin to understand what 'this 'racism' is all about.... since we don't live it... but it seems certain others do..... and make a big deal out of it.

Spot on. The ones screaming it are the ones living it imo.

mothra wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 10:28pm:

Grendel wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 10:27pm: mothra wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:10pm: I'll just wait for you to catch up. Rhino is correct....  YOU as usual are wrong, like so many of your ilk on so many things. race [reys] noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology.  Any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by distinctive and universal physical characteristics.  An arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. Oh good. Rhino and Grendel are in agreement. How ever will science and i counter that?

No you won't.
Too bad so sad :D :D :D :D :D... 

White lives matter.

Grendel wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 1:59pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 10:28pm: Grendel wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 10:27pm: mothra wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:10pm: I'll just wait for you to catch up. Rhino is correct....  YOU as usual are wrong, like so many of your ilk on so many things. race [reys] noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology.  Any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by distinctive and universal physical characteristics.  An arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. Oh good. Rhino and Grendel are in agreement. How ever will science and i counter that? No you won't. Too bad so sad :D :D :D :D :D...

I already have, Grendel. So has science. It's all in the OP.

But carry on. You're particularly good at making a tit of yourself.

You haven't anything....

You spout nonsense and yes it gets proven daily.

Love the topic title.... 

How can racism exist of there are no races? :D :D :D :D :D
tsk tsk, tsk....  dopey dopey dopey...  Shotdown yet again. ;D

mothra wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 4:57pm:

I already have, Grendel. So has science. It's all in the OP. But carry on. You're particularly good at making a tit of yourself.

yes, its all in the OP.
Quote:

a philosopher’s perspective

lol.

I wonder who Mohtra thinks shes fooling? Anyone?

Schoolchildren jailed for building only white snowmen.

Grendel wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:26am:

You haven't anything.... You spout nonsense and yes it gets proven daily. Love the topic title....  How can racism exist of there are no races? :D :D :D :D :D tsk tsk, tsk....  dopey dopey dopey...  Shotdown yet again. ;D

Black people are a figment of your imagination.